About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
of missil defense approach that i just identified one as the amount and the phased adaptive approach and alaska both pieces do you approve both parts? >> i do. >> on the brac issue, as i understanding your testimony and your budget, mr. secretary, there is a short-term cost that there was an additional brac improvements, but that cost is not in the 2014 budget request. you put it in the 2015 budgeta >> the money is in 2016, it is $2.4 million of additional funds. previous rounds you testified saved, i believe, $12 billion annually. was that the savings that you say exist from the created from the last ground? from all the previous rounds. if you would like more detail maybe you could bring it out. i think you on the 75th barack you might remember you were in the the senate at the time in 2005. you might remember that i kind of lead the opposition of that round unsuccessfully. my senior senator was on the other side. yorm how you voted on that. we'll get in to that. >> by support. >> okay. okay. >> yeah i came with the first it was bringing down our infrastructure to an artificially l
of defense, we talk about the post office and prepayments being made. there is one truism on both, o s the taxpayer is ultimately on the hook. yes. so it is not an issue is this just a quasi-government organization, both dod and you need prepayments. we're ultimately on the hook the taxpayer is. what concerns me in a time, admitted, mr. chairman your low liquidity. you're not really sure you can get down as low as two days later this year, at a time in which the discussions have been made and i have read about the board of governors and your role. you do believe you have a fiduciary duty in your role to the postal service and in your role, correct? >> mr. chairman, representative, yes. >> that means there's a trust. there's a trust with you and the board of governors not just strictly you but i believe with the postmaster general and others in this situation. what i keep hearing is, well we thought of and we're looking at that. we have a five-year plan that was many years ago. we have discussions that we want to do. we're exploring ideas. these are direct quotes from today, exploring h
of the defense intelligence agency spa capano current thfureat to the national securi. along with the national security agency, the national geospatial intelligence agency and the national reconnaissanceoffice and thinteencen etservices erts of the department of de that are also elements of the intelligence communy thatth direct clapper hits. director clapper while much of the information that you provide to policy makers in putting members of congress cannot be shared with the public because of its sensitivity and classification. the people who elected us to serve deserve the best information that we can publicly provide them. so we are glad that you and the general are with us this morning to do just that. among the challenges that we face is a self-inflicted wound, one with the fact that director clapper has rightly said amplify the other threats that we come from around the world that challenges the and prioritized cuts required by sequestration. this committee is interested in hearing from both of you today about the impact of the fy 2013 sequestration and the impact it's having on the in
for self-defense and for hunting and for sportsman activities. target shooting. i still go target shooting basically out my backyard in searchlight with my grandchildren. but i've always had trouble understanding why people need assault weapons to hunt or protect their homes or to target shoot. when the assault weapons ban came before the senate for a vote ten years ago, i called my friends, one in particular, who is a real advocate with -- on guns. and he said to me, you can't define an assault weapon. why are you doing this? you can't define an assault weapon. he convinced me he was right, so i voted against that. i voted against the ban. just about a month ago i called this same friend. i asked if his opinion had changed. generally no, but specifically yes, it had changed. he still opposes a ban on assault weapons. i said tell me why. i found his new reasoning absurd. and even though i care a great deal about my friend, he's headed in the wrong direction. so it caused me to reassess my position. he said do police have assault weapons? i said, yeah, some of them. he said if they have the
, it will worsen dramatically and be far more costly . the defense department has studied potential threats to national security posed by climate change . d.o.d.'s 2010 quad perennial defense review -- quadrennial defense review states climate change may act as an accelerant for instability and that in turn would place burdens on civilian institutions and militaries around the world . the top commander in the pacific, admiral samuel locklear, said the biggest long-term security challenge in the pacific is the climate change . as the pacific commander, he understands the impact that sea level rise and extreme weather events can have on our military resources and on civilian populations in the pacific . my constituents in minnesota also understand that the threat of climate change . that's why recently nearly 400 people gathered at a local lutheran charge in wilmer, minnesota, to talk about climate change . wilmer is not a big city, so when this many people gather in one place, you know it's a big deal . they're concerned about climate change and the marked increase in severe weather occurren
government is increasingly held in such low regard by the american people. but for the left the defensive crouch at least makes sense. liberalism's main purpose today is to defend its past gains from conservative reform. but negativity on the right, to my mind, makes no sense at all. the left has created this false narrative that liberals are for things, and conservatives are against things. when we concede this narrative even just implicitly, we concede the debate before that debate even begins. and yet too many of us, elected conservatives especially, do it anyway. we take the bait. a liberal proposes an idea, we explain why it won't work, and we think we've won the debate at that moment. but even if we do, we reinforce at ivat i'm talking about; winning battles while we're losing the war at every step. this must be frustrating to the scholars of the heritage foundation who work every day producing new ideas, ideas about what conservatives can be for. but it should be even more frustrating to the conservatives around the country that we as elected conservatives were, in fact, elected to
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6